Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 303 (RAJ)

Surmal @ Suraj Bhil v. State of Rajasthan

2015-02-02

V.K.MATHUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : V.K. Mathur, J. The petitioner Surmal @ Suraj Bhil, a juvenile in conflict with law has preferred instant revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Kota in FIR No. 435/14 of Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City whereby the application for grant of bail moved on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 07/2015, by which the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2014 the prosecutrix, aged 15 years lodged a report at Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City against the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that she was forcibly raped by the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, a FIR No. 435/2014 for the offence under Section 365, 342 and 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered. Thereafter charge sheet was filed against the petitioner Surmal @ Suraj Bhil for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 343 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material available on record to justify declining bail to the petitioner, who was juvenile at the time of commission of the offence. It is further contended that the gravity of the offence committed cannot be a ground to decline the bail. It is also contended that the courts below, without taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Act, in a cursory manner declined bail to the petitioner. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Shakti Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2014(2) Crimes 749(Raj.). 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that a gruesome crime of rape has been committed by the petitioner and Section 12 of the Act debars the grant of bail in a case which defeats the ends of justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that a gruesome crime of rape has been committed by the petitioner and Section 12 of the Act debars the grant of bail in a case which defeats the ends of justice. It was also contended that such an offence shatters the life of the victim and shocks the conscience of the society at large. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner Surmal @ Suraj Bhil should not be given indulgence of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Bail of a juvenile in conflict with law has to be considered in accordance with provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act which is reproduced as under: "12. Bail of juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under Subsection (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 7. (3) When such person is not released on bail under Sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 7. The aforesaid section no where ordains that bail to a juvenile is a must in all cases as it can be denied for the reasons"....if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice." 8. In the light of above statutory provision bail prayer of the juvenile petitioner has to be considered on the surrounding facts and circumstances. Merely by declaration of being a juvenile does not entitle a juvenile in conflict with law to be released on bail as a matter of right. Legislature has preserved larger interest of society even in cases of bail to a juvenile. The Act seeks to achieve moral, physical and psychological betterment of juvenile offender and therefore if, it is found that the ends of justice will be defeated or that goal desired by the legislature can be achieved by detaining a juvenile offender in a juvenile home, bail can be denied to him. This is perceptible from phraseology of Section 12 itself. Legislature in its wisdom has therefore carved out exceptions to the rule of bail to a juvenile. 9. When analysed in the light of the above discussion, case of the petitioner falls in more than one exception provided under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner had kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was a minor and had forcibly raped her which unerringly indicate criminal proclivities of the petitioner and his depraved sexuality. The petitioner even as a juvenile has gone to the extent of raping the prosecutrix. In such a view, if the petitioner is released on bail, not only it will be miscarriage of justice having a serious impact on the society, but will push the petitioner into further moral and psychological degradation and would defeat the ends of justice. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this revision which is dismissed. The bail prayer of the petitioner is declined by confirming impugned orders passed by Juvenile Justice Board dated 05.01.2015 and lower appellate court dated 08.01.2015. Petition Dismissed.